<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (6) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37637</link>
    <description>Additional price of sugarcane was not treated as an accrued liability for deduction in the relevant assessment year, following the Court&#039;s earlier view on the same assessee and issue. Commission and brokerage paid under a selling agency arrangement were treated as allowable business expenditure because the arrangement had commercial substance, including deposit obligations, office maintenance requirements and an ongoing contractual framework. The control regime did not by itself negate the business character of the payments, and the brokerage to the associate was regarded as ancillary to the main agency arrangement. The claimed deductions were therefore allowed on the footing that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:02:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (6) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37637</link>
      <description>Additional price of sugarcane was not treated as an accrued liability for deduction in the relevant assessment year, following the Court&#039;s earlier view on the same assessee and issue. Commission and brokerage paid under a selling agency arrangement were treated as allowable business expenditure because the arrangement had commercial substance, including deposit obligations, office maintenance requirements and an ongoing contractual framework. The control regime did not by itself negate the business character of the payments, and the brokerage to the associate was regarded as ancillary to the main agency arrangement. The claimed deductions were therefore allowed on the footing that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>